COVENANT AND CIRCUMCISSION IN GEN.

17: THE CASE

FOR AN (UN)CONDITIONAL COVENANT
SERGIO MARÍN GARCÍA

Over the past decades, the concept of covenant has regained the attention of scholars and
commentators to the point of being regarded as one of the central themes in the Old Testament. After
Wellhausen’s characterization, in 1885, of Israel’s covenant with God as a late biblical concept
formulated by the Deuteronomic editor1, the covenant theme was virtually thrown into oblivion. In
1955, G.E. Mendenhall’s critical studies2 ―where he compares the Hittites suzerainty treaties with the
covenants with Israel from Sinai onward― triggered a renewed interest in the field. This study was
later expanded by D.J. McCarthy3, who surveyed additional non-Hittite treatises, and by M.G. Kline4,
who examined the place of oath in covenant-making and distinguished between law-covenants and
promise-covenants. Mendenhall’s study was followed by the dissemination in English of Walter
Eichrodt’s Theologie des Alten Testaments5, which attempted to show how the covenant (‫ )בְּ ִרית‬represents
a central theme in the Old Testament and functions as a transversal element that defines the
relationship between God and his people. Eichrodt’s work was initially met with skepticism, but the
appearance of the archeological data studied by Mendenhall and others6 confirmed the validity of his
approach.

Since then, numerous studies and publications have enlarged the mass of scholarship on the
topic and have opened new lines of research like the literary-critical division of particular divine
covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc.), studies on the etymology of ‫בְּ ִרית‬, or the
afterlife of the covenant theme in Second Temple and Rabbinic literature7. Throughout these works,

1 The use of the expression ‘Deuteronomic editor’ to refer to D is problematic, for it seems to imply that D is the only
source present in Deuteronomy when that is not the case. Since this paper only deals with the sources present in
Gen. 17, there is no need to distinguish between the editor of Deut. 12-26 (D) and the other sources. Therefore,
whenever the expression ‘Deuteronomic editor’ is employed here it will always refer to D.
2 G.E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburg, PA: Biblical Colloquium, 1955).
3 D.J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and the Old Testament (Rome: Pontificio

Istituto Biblico, 1963).

4 M.G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1963), and By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968).
5 W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1933-1939). English translation: Theology of the Old

Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961-1967).

6 See, for instance, K. Baltzer, Das Bunderformular (Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag, 1960).
7 For an overview on the research carried out over the last decades as well as the current state of inquiry see S. Hahn,

“Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994-2004)”, Currents in Biblical Research 3.2

1
one of the most repeated assumptions is the fact that in the Bible there appear to be two kinds of
covenants that shape and define the relationship between God and Israel. The first type corresponds
to the Noahic, the Abrahamic, and the Davidic covenants, which are unilaterally established by God
and are not contingent on any human condition or contribution. The second type corresponds to the
Sinaitic covenant made in the wilderness, which subordinates the validity of the covenant to Israel’s
compliance with the stipulations issued by God. The first type is usually referred to as the covenant
of ‘pure grace’ or ‘gracious covenant’ since that is the term (‫ )הַ בְּ ִרית וְּ הַ חֶ סֶ ד‬that Deuteronomic sources
use to refer to both the Abrahamic (Deut. 7:9) and the Davidic covenant (1 Kings 8:23). Following
David N. Freedman’s twofold covenant typology, this first type is also referred to as a ‘covenant of
divine commitment’8, inasmuch as is God who takes upon himself certain obligations: not to destroy
the earth again (Gen. 9:11), to provide a numerous progeny (Gen. 17:6), to grant land (Gen. 17:8), etc.
On the contrary, the covenant initiated at Mt. Sinai is seen as a ‘covenant of human obligation’ since
the terms and stipulations are now imposed upon the human party: ‫הַמ ְּשפָּטִ ים אֲשֶ ר תָּ ִשים לִ פְּ נֵיהֶם‬
ִ ‫וְּ אֵ לֶה‬
(Exod. 19:1). There are many subtleties involved in this twofold typology, but the main difference is
that in the covenant of divine commitment is God himself who warrants the eternal nature of the
covenant, while the validity of the covenant of human obligation relies on the performance of the
human party. So long as Israel abides by the covenant’s provisions its bond with God will be
maintained and the blessings associated with the covenant will be provided.

Beyond this distinction, what is relevant to our study is the fact that the Sinai covenant ―the
covenant that imposes obligations on the human party― is absent from the Priestly document, which
only features instead those covenants (with Noah in Gen. 9, with Abraham in Gen. 17, and with
Phineas in Num. 25) that fall under the category of unconditional9. Gerhard von Rad and other authors
have argued that the Priestly redactor overemphasized the covenant with Abraham to the point of
virtually omitting any reference to the Sinaitic covenant10. Others like Frank Moore Cross have
identified the Priestly strata with the final redaction stage of the Pentateuch and thus read the Priestly

(2005), pp. 263-292; and D.J. McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry”, The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27.3 (1965), pp. 217-240.
8 D.N. Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation”, Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 18.4 (1964),

pp. 419-431.
9 It should be noted, however, that not all the instances of this type of covenant belong to P: the covenant with Abraham

is first established in Gen. 15 (J), the promises to Abraham in Gen. 12:2-3 (JE); the divine promise to David (Ps.
89:4, 29, 34, 39). The Priestly editor might have systematized this covenant type, but the tradition behind it is
scattered throughout different sources.
10 Cf. G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1972), pp. 20-23. This view was also

adopted by Martin Noth, see M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1972), p. 240.

2
document as a reworking of the different source material available at that time. Therefore, if one finds
no explicit reference to the Sinaitic covenant in P ―they argue― the reason must be that the redactor
assumed the narrative to be already known from the JE source11. A more compelling argument was
advanced in 1960 by Walter Zimmerli, who argued that the absence of the Sinai covenant in P could
hardly be linked to the process of compiling the Pentateuchal sources but was rather a deliberate
device: the Priestly redactor deliberately omitted the Sinaitic covenant so that the relationship between
God and his people would no longer be conditional upon Israel’s obedience to the commandments.
According to Zimmerli, P would have thus reinterpreted the notion of ‫ בְּ ִרית‬at the time of its
composition ―namely, after the fall in Jerusalem in 583― by giving prominence to the covenant with
Abraham, a covenant of promise (Verheissungsbund) and grace (Gnadenbund). And, by so doing, he
would have indicated that the validity of covenant still stood, for its duration was dependent on God’s
eternal grace and not on Israel conforming with the binding stipulations issued in the wilderness12.
Zimmerli’s distinction between the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic covenant as a covenant of grace and a
covenant of obligation rapidly gained support and exerted great influence on other studies like
Freedman’s twofold covenant typology. This distinction was further corroborated by Moshe
Weinfeld’s study on the Ancient Near East sources, which attests to the existence of two types of
covenants: an ‘obligatory’ covenant, modeled after the suzerain-vassal treaties and reflected in the
tradition of the covenant established at Mt. Sinai; and a ‘promissory’ covenant, modeled after the grant
formulae in the Ancient Near East and reflected in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants13.

Zimmerli’s contribution and the studies that followed seem to have successfully squared the
circle. However, the attribution of Gen. 17 to P and, subsequently, the understanding of this covenant
with Abraham as an unconditional covenant, has been heavily contested in recent scholarship. For the
covenant narrative in this chapter does seem to impose an obligation upon Abraham and his
descendants ―male circumcision―, and explicitly warns that failure to observe it will be tantamount
to breaking the covenant: “And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his
foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has broken my covenant” (Gen. 17:14). The
institution of circumcision thus inevitably invokes the question of conditionality: Is the covenant

11 F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion in Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1973), pp. 293-325.
12 W. Zimmerli, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum Verständis der Priesterschrift”, Theologische Zeitschrift 16

(1960), pp. 268-280.

13 M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East”, Journal of American Oriental

Society 90.2 (1970), pp. 184-203.

3
established with Abraham everlasting and unconditional or, on the contrary, is it contingent on Israel’s
practice of circumcision?

Several approaches have been adopted to solve this seeming contradiction. Some scholars
have advanced the thesis that God made more than one covenant with Abraham 14 and argue that
chapters 15, 17, and 22 offer enough material to construct two or three different covenants from
them. In a similar vein, it has also been argued that God first made a covenant with Abraham in Gen.
15, which over time was reaffirmed and expanded in Gen. 17 and 22 with supplemental information,
requirements, and promises15. Another group of scholars argues for a literary-critical division of Gen.
17. In their view, the verses that introduce into the narrative the commandment to circumcise (vv. 9-
14), as well as Abraham’s fulfillment of that commandment amid his household (vv. 23-27), present
enough stylistic and literary differences to see these fragments as a later reworking of the narrative.
Some of these authors go on to say that these verses represent the editorial device of the Holiness
redactor, who sought to give a more ethical character to the narrative beyond the cultic interests of
P16. Finally, other scholars opt to see the narrative in Gen. 17 as a unified literary composition and
develop a reading of this passage that supports P’s unconditional covenant theology17.

In light of the aforementioned state of research, it becomes somehow clear that the discussion
regarding the nature of the covenant established in Gen. 17 is far from settled. This is partly due to
the different approaches followed and to the fact that some significant advances have only taken place
in the last two decades (as is the case with the thesis that attributes to H certain verses in Gen. 17).
On top of that, there is a lack of studies that incorporate a holistic perspective into the analysis18 and
try to compound the different insights gained from archeological findings, the extra-biblical covenant
data of the Ancient Near East, studies on the etymology of the word ‫בְּ ִרית‬, the parallel covenants in

14 P.R.Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), pp.
89-91; S. Hahn, Kingship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 101-135.
15 W. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 77; G. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Dallas: Word Books,

1994), pp. 28-32, 96-118.

16 I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 137-

148; B.T. Arnold, “The Holiness Redaction of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 17)”, in S.L. Birdsong & S.
Frolov (eds.) Partners with God: Theological and Critical Readings of the Bible in Honor of Marvin A. Sweeney (Claremont,
CA: Claremont Press, 2017), pp. 51-61.
17 H.-J. Stipp, “Meinen Bund hat er gebrochen (Gen 17,14). Die Individualisierung des Bundesbruchs in der Priesterschrift,

Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Prophetie”, Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 56.4 (2005), pp. 290-304;
J.J. Krause, “Circumcision and covenant in Genesis 17”, Biblica 99.2 (2018), pp. 151-165.
18 The study by J.J. Krause (2018) is probably an exemption in this regard, as it provides a lengthy summary of the

discussion regarding the literary composition of Gen. 17 (including the alleged attribution of vv. 9-14 to the
Holiness redactor) before advancing his own diachronic reading of the passage.

4
the Priestly document and the aforementioned source division of Gen. 17. This paper aims at bridging
that gap by assessing the main contributions made in the aforementioned fields. To that end, I will
start by considering the etymological origin of the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬as well as the semantic fields that surround
the word throughout the Old Testament. I will then assess the extant Ancient Near East documents
that might have informed the biblical covenant traditions. Finally, I will review both the diachronic
and the synchronic attempts at reading the covenant with Abraham as unconditional. In particular, I
will focus on how these different approaches try to solve the underlying tension between the assumed
unconditional national of this covenant and the presence of the commandment to circumcise.

The etimology and semantic field of ‫בְּ ִרית‬

Perhaps the easiest way to start the inquiry on the conditionality of the covenant established
in Gen. 17 is by looking at the etymology of the word ‫בְּ ִרית‬. A first possibility is to connect the Hebrew
berît with the Akkadian noun birītu and the late Hebrew ‫ בירית‬in the sense of fetter or ring. However,
scholars are doubtful of this etymological relation for it is difficult to imagine how a covenant was
conceived as a fetter in ancient times19. Given that covenants often appear in the Hebrew Bible as
existing between two parties, another possibility is to link the term with the Akkadian word birīt,
‘between’ or ‘mutually’, as attested in Old Akkadian and Old Babylonian onward. Examples of this
usage include “we will establish friendly relations between him and me [bi-ri-ti-a u bi-ri-ti-šu]”; “a copy
of the written agreement which Tešup arranged between [be-ri-it GN u ina be-ri-it] Egypt and Hatti”;
“there is peace between them” [šulmu bir-ti-šú-nu bir ti]”. The term also occurs in the context of oath-
swearing: “PN u PN2 nīš ilī dannam [i]na bi-ri-ti-šu-nu izkuruma, PN and PN2 mutually swore a mighty
oath”20. Moshe Held brings another example from the Akkadian documents found in Mari. There it
reads21:

I went to Ašlakka and they brought to me a young dog and a she-goat in order to conclude a
covenant (lit. " kill a donkey foal ") between [birīt] the Haneans and the land of Idamaras. But,
in deference to my lord, I did not permit (the use of) the young dog and the she-goat, but
(instead) had a donkey foal, the young of a she-ass, killed, and thus established a reconciliation
between [birīt] the Haneans and the land of Idamaras.

19 L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994), § 1454.
20 I.J. Gelb et. al. (eds.), The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Volume 2 (Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute, 1965), pp. 250-252.
21 M. Held, “Philological Notes on the Mari Covenant Rituals”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 200.33

(1970), p. 33. The translation is provided by M. Held.

5
 The Akkadian term is used in this document to denote the syntactic relationship of the parties
entering the covenant. That is, birīt implies a sense of mutuality and stresses the relationship aspect,
similar to the Hebrew term ‫ בין‬which is also found in the context of covenant-making22. In the
aforementioned example, birīt functions as a preposition, but scholars entertain the possibility that the
term might have been substantivized and adopted into Biblical Hebrew as the specific word for
covenant23. Parallels between the expression ‘to kill a donkey’ and ‘cut a calf’ in Jer. 34:18 have also
been noted and have led some scholars to think that the practice of cutting an animal was used to
solemnize covenants in ancient times which in turn would explain the expression ‘cut a covenant’
(‫ )כרת ברית‬found in Gen. 15:18 and elsewhere24. Against this understanding of the term, Ernst Kutsch
advanced a different etymology of berît by deriving the word from brh II with the meaning ‘to choose’.
In his view, the root has a meaning similar to the Akkadian term barû, ‘to look’, which in turn led to
understand the term berît as determining or deciding. It turns out that this thesis had already been
anticipated in the 12th century by Ibn Ezra. In his commentary to Gen. 6:18, he writes that “covenant
means an agreement and a thing which two sides choose. It comes from the same root as beru (choose)
in choose (beru) you a man for you (I Sam. 17:8)”25. However, this thesis has not gained much scholarly
support due to the scarce evidence. Additionally, Kutsch himself resorted to the ANE parallels of berît
(Akkadian riksu, Hittite ishiul, Arabic ‘qd) to prove that the original meaning of the term was not alliance
or agreement but rather obligation or pledge, which reinforces the thesis that the etymology of berît
should be sought in that direction (i.e.: the aforementioned occurrence of birīt in the ANE covenant
treaties)26.

If we now turn to the Old Testament, we find that the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬appears 286 times equally
scattered throughout the Pentateuch, the historical books, and the prophets. In light of such an
extensive use of the word, one would expect to find slight variations and nuances in the meaning and
context where the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬occurs. For this reason, the analysis of the etymological origin of the term

22 See, for instance, Gen. 9:12 (‫) ַוי ֹּאמֶ ר אֱֹלהִ ים ז ֹּאת אֹות־הַבְּ ִרית אֲשֶ ר־אֲנִ י נֹּ תֵ ן בֵ ינִ י ּובֵ ינֵיכֶם‬, Gen. 17:2 ( ‫יתי בֵ ינִ י ּובֵ ינֶָך וְּ אַ ְּרבֶ ה‬ ִ ‫וְּ אֶ ְּתנָּה בְּ ִר‬
‫אֹותָך בִ מְּ אֹּ ד מְּ אֹּ ד‬
ְּ ), Gen. 26:28 (‫)תהִ י נָּא אָּ לָּה בֵ ינֹותֵ ינּו בֵ ינֵינּו ּובֵ ינֶָך וְּ נִכְּ ְּרתָּ ה בְּ ִרית עִ מָּ ְך‬,
ְּ 2 Kings 11:17 ( ‫וַיִכְּ רֹּת יְּ הֹויָּדָּ ע אֶ ת־הַבְּ ִרית‬
‫) בֵ ין יְּ הֹּ וָּה ּובֵ ין הַמֶ לְֶך ּובֵ ין הָּ עָּם לִ הְּ יֹות לְּ עָּם לַיהֹּ וָּה ּובֵ ין הַמֶ לְֶך ּובֵ ין הָּ ָּעם‬.
23 R. Youngblood, “The Abrahamic Covenant: Conditional or Unconditional?”, in M.A. Inch & R. Youngblood (eds.), The

Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz (Penn State University, PA: Eisenbrauns, 1983),
p. 35.
24 F. Brown, S. Driver & C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

Publishers, 1996), § 3372; McCarthy (1963), pp. 53-57; Kline (1968), p. 43.
25 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Genesis. The commentary is part of his Commentary on Pentateuch (Sefer haYashar) written between

1142-1145. The text has been retrieved from www.sefaria.org

26 M. Weinfeld, “Berît – Covenant vs. Obligation”, Biblica 56.1 (1975), p. 123.

6
ought to be accompanied by a survey of the different understandings of ‫ בְּ ִרית‬that appear throughout
the canon. As Weinfeld has demonstrated, the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬in the Hebrew Bible revolves around two
main semantic fields: ‘oath and commitment’ on the one hand, and ‘love and friendship’ on the other27.
Some of the terms that belong to the first semantic field are ‫( אָּ לָּה‬Deut. 29:11, 13), which appears
together with the term berît and expresses the oath that accompanies the covenant; or ‫( עֵדָּ ה‬Deut.
6:17,20), which always appears in connection to the divine laws. With regards to the second semantic
field, the most common term that stresses the graceful nature of the covenantal relationship is ‫חֶ סֶ ד‬
(Deut. 7:8-9; Exod. 34:6-7), which often appears in pairs with other terms like ‫( בְּ ִרית וְּ הָּ חֶ סֶ ד‬Deut. 7:12),
‫( טֹוב וְּ חֶ סֶ ד‬Ps. 25:7), ‫( חֶסֶ ד וְּ ַרח ֲִמים‬Zech. 7:9)28.

A first conclusion that can be drawn from the above examples is that both the etymologies
for the term berît and the semantic fields where the term is featured suggest that a covenant entails
some sort of relationship or bond between two parties. With regards to the nature of this covenantal
relationship, the proposed etymologies include examples where the covenant or treaty being discussed
envisages certain conditions for upholding the bond and list the terms for violating the covenant,
while other examples seem to fall in the category of a covenant of grant where no conditions are
attached29. The same applies to the semantic fields that accompany the term berît in the canon, which
seem to attest to the existence of a promissory-type covenant on the one hand (the covenant sworn
to the Patriarchs), and, on the other hand, of a pledge-type covenant that involves mutual
commitments (the covenant of Sinai).

Since our concern here has to do with the specific nature of the covenant established in Gen.
17, a word about the usage of the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬in P is in order. A quick survey of the occurrences of the
term throughout the Priestly document reveals that the Priestly redactor was somewhat familiar with
a twofold covenant category. This does not tantamount to saying that there existed such a clear-cut
division back then, but the fact remains that in his usage of ‫ בְּ ִרית‬the Priestly redactor does distinguish
between two categories: a commitment and set of obligations imposed by God, and a promise granted
by God30. The latter is the most common and is used with respect to God’s promises to Noah and
humanity (Gen. 6:18; 9:9-7), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. 2:24; 6:4; Lev. 26:42), Phineas (Num.

27 M. Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and its Influence on the West”, Journal of the American
Oriental Society 93.2 (1973), pp. 190-99.
28 On the use of ‫ חֶסֶ ד‬and its synonym to express the covenantal relationship see N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (Eugene, OR:

Wipf & Stock, 1967).

29 Weinfeld (1970).
30 D. Bernat, Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Priestly Tradition (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), p. 28.

7
25:12), the priests (Num. 18:19), and the entire Israel (Lev. 26:9, 44-45). Whenever this promissory
type comes up in the text, P always employs the term ‫בְּ ִרית‬. On the other hand, whenever P refers to
the covenant as a set of obligations imposed by God on Israel he seldom uses the term ‫בְּ ִרית‬31, rather
the term ‫ עֵדּות‬is employed (Exod. 31:18; 32:15-16, 19). As we shall discuss later, the use of the ‫בְּ ִרית‬-
command terminology in P is so rare that some authors have opted to see some of these instances
(including the command to circumcise in Gen. 17:9-14) as the work of a later hand which some identify
as H. That being said, the majority of occurrences of the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬show that, in the Priestly world,
the covenant consists of a unidirectional promise made by God: no mention is made to either a
covenant ritual or ceremony or the voluntary acceptance of the vassal. The covenant in P still includes
the mutuality aspect of the covenant-making, as God explicitly states that he is establishing a covenant
between him and the counterparty (Noah, Abraham, etc.), but free choice and reciprocity do not seem
to be part of the Priestly understanding of ‫בְּ ִרית‬.

The covenant of grant in the Ancient Near East

The belief that two types of covenants coexist in the Old Testament ―a covenant of divine
commitment and a covenant of human obligation― has been fueled by Weinfeld’s amply documented
paper, where he dwells upon the parallels between the divine grants of land, priesthood, and kingdom
in the Bible and the human grants attested in the treaties of the Ancient Near East. Weinfeld draws
upon the thorough study published in 1954 by Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition”32,
which investigates the nature and origin of the covenant between God and Israel and compares its
formulations with the Hittite treaties in the Ancient Near East. Mendenhall lists a number of formal
elements that ―although with slight variations― are common to these Hittite treaties: preamble,
historical prologue, stipulations, provision for deposit in the temple, list of witnesses, and curses and
blessings. These treatises were often ratified through a formal oath by which the vassal pledged his
obedience to the king and were accompanied by a solemn ceremony that ratified the pact.

According to Mendenhall, only two of the covenant traditions in the Bible fall into this form:
the covenant of Moses which concludes with the Decalogue, and the covenant included in the
narrative of Joshua 24. The covenants with Noah and Abraham follow a completely different pattern,

31 P only uses term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬to refer to the covenant of obligation when he mentions the Shabbath observance in Exod. 31:16,
the salting of the grain offering in Lev. 2:13, and the curse issued by God upon breaking of the covenant in Lev.
26:15. The problem that these occurrences pose to P’s covenant theory will be dealt with later in this paper.
32 G. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition”, The Biblical Archaeologist 17.3 (1954), pp. 49-76.

8
for although these covenants follow the form of a suzerain covenant, it is God himself who swears to
certain promises to be carried out in the future. Weinfeld agrees with Mendenhall but argues that, in
addition to the Hittite ‘political treaty’, the Mesopotamian cultural sphere also bore witness to a second
type of judicial document, the ‘royal grant’, whose classical form is found in the Babylonian kudurru
documents. The main difference between these documents is that the ‘treaty’ envisages an obligation
of the vassal to his master ―the suzerain―, while the ‘grant’ envisages an obligation of the master to
his servant. Likewise, the curses envisioned in the ‘treaty’ are directed towards the vassal who violates
the right of the king, while the ‘grant’ curses are directed towards the one who violates the right of the
king’s vassal. As Weinfeld notes, the ‘grant’ seeks to protect the rights of the vassal, while the ‘treaty’
seeks to protect the rights of the suzerain. Additionally, the ‘grant’ constitutes a reward for loyalty and
good deeds already performed, while the ‘treaty’ is an incentive for future good behavior33.

In Weinfeld’s view, these two judicial forms from the Ancient Near East correspond to the
two types of covenants found in the Bible: the obligatory and the promissory. While some covenants
like the Mosaic fall into the form of a suzerain covenant where the vassal pledges obedience to his
master, Weinfeld argues that the Abrahamic and the Davidic covenants belong to the grant type of
covenant where the suzerain ―God― commits himself to certain unconditional promises. The
parallels between these biblical traditions and the royal grants are numerous. The grants in the Ancient
Near East were bestowed upon excellent individuals following the king’s desire to reward his loyal
servants. Likewise, Abraham was promised the land because he obeyed God (Gen. 26:5) and followed
his mandate (Gen. 22:16-18). The loyalty of the servants that made them merit the favor of the king
is usually expressed in Assyrian grants through the notion of ‘serving perfectly’, which is also verbally
paralleled in the covenants with the patriarchs and David. Abraham’s faith is expressed by “walk
before me and be blameless” (Gen. 17:1; 24:40), which parallels the expression ina mahriya ittalak/izziz
found in Assyrian grants. Noah, who also entered into a covenantal relationship with God, is also
described as a “righteous man, blameless in his generation” (Gen. 6:9).

Additional parallels between the royal grant and the promissory covenant are found in the
legal formula employed in the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 17. In particular, the objects of the
Abrahamic covenant, ‘land’ and ‘seed’, constitute the most prominent gifts that a suzerain could grant
to his servants in the Mesopotamic political reality. The extant Hittite royal grants show that the
promises of land and dynasty were always unconditional and were given only to the most loyal vassals.

33 Weinfeld (1970), p. 185.

9
Some of the expressions included in the promise of land mand to Abraham are: ‫( לְּ ז ְַּרעֲָך עַד־עֹולָּם‬Gen.
13:15), ‫( ז ְַּרעֲָך אַ ח ֲֶריָך לְּ דֹּ רֹּ תָּ ם‬Gen. 17:7-8). These expressions are identical to the donation formulae from
Susa, Alalah, Ugarit, and Elephantine34. Likewise, the covenant formula ‫( לִ הְּ יֹות לְּ ָך לֵאֹלהִ ים‬Gen. 17:7)
seems to be taken from the ANE marriage legal terminology35. Weinfeld further supports his thesis
by arguing that both the Deuteronomic and the Priestly redactor were aware of the distinctions
between the royal grant and the political treaty, and hence also employed different terms to refer to
their equivalent promissory or obligatory covenant. As noted earlier, Deuteronomic sources refer to
the covenant with Abraham as ‫הַ בְּ ִרית וְּ הַ חֶ סֶ ד‬, the ‘gracious covenant’, while the covenants of Sinai and
the Plains of Moab are only referred to as ‫בְּ ִרית‬. The Priestly redactor, on the other hand, used the
term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬to refer to the royal grant, while the treaty is referred to only as ‫עֵדּות‬. This becomes clear
when both sources mention the tablets of the covenant: D always employs ‫לחות הברית‬, while P uses
the term ‫לחות העדות‬.

The redaction of Genesis 17 and the Holiness school

We have reviewed so far the work of different scholars who, building on archaeological,
literary, stylistic, and theological evidence, argue that the Priestly author understood the covenant to
be an unconditional bond between the parties of the agreement, and whose initiation rested solely on
God’s side. That is, God himself takes the initiative to establish a relationship between him and the
human party and swears to fulfill certain promises. He even grants a sign (‫ )אֹות‬as a reminder of the
validity of the covenant36. Although this understanding of the Priestly covenant theory might account
for ―as Zimmerli has argued― the omission in P of any reference to the Sinaitic covenant, it still
leaves unanswered some questions. First, if unconditionality is fundamental to P’s covenant narratives
―to the point of distinguishing between the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬and ‫―עֵדּות‬, why does P employ the term ‫בְּ ִרית‬
in Exod. 31:12-17 and in Leviticus 26 to refer to covenants that are markedly conditional upon Israel’s
observances of the laws and commandments? And, more important for our purpose here, why does
the covenant with Abraham comes attached with the condition to circumcise every male person?

These questions have been increasingly taken into account during the last decades, partly as a
result of the scholarly debate generated around the origin and scope of the so-called ‘Holiness Code’

34 Weinfeld (1970), p. 199.

35 Idem., p. 200.
36 M. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in Light of the Priestly ‘ôt Etiologies”, Revue Biblique 81.4 (1974), pp.

557-596.

10
(H). In an influential essay published in 1987, Israel Knohl advanced the thesis that H not only
postdates P but is also the product of a different priestly school which he baptized as the ‘Holiness
School’37. As such, Knohl argues that the Holiness redactor was responsible for the final recension of
the earlier Priestly material, which he calls the ‘Priestly Torah’. Since then, other scholars like Jacob
Milgrom or Jan Joosten have adhered to this theory. In their view, the redactional activity of this
Holiness school envisioned a re-elaboration of the concept of covenant in P. In particular, they ascribe
Lev. 26 and Exod. 31:12-17 to H, which would explain why in these chapters the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬is used in
the context of a conditional covenant. The use of ‫ בְּ ִרית‬in Lev. 26 is especially representative of the
reinterpretation carried out by H. The chapter opens with an enumeration (vv. 3-12) of blessings that
are conditional upon observance of God’s ‫( חקים‬statutes) and ‫( מצות‬commandments), and is followed
by another enumeration (vv. 14-39) of the curses that await Israel if it does not abide by those same
statutes and commandments. Throughout these verses, the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬is used consistently to speak of
a single covenant, that is, the narrative does not distinguish between the Sinaitic and the Abrahamic
covenant. This covenant is always presented as being conditional upon Israel’s loyalty: the narrative
first enumerates the blessings that will fall on Israel if it follows the laws, and then lists the curses that
will befall Israel if it does not comply with them. In both instances, the narrative begins with the
protasis ‫אם‬.ִ In v. 9, however, the use of ‫ בְּ ִרית‬is accompanied by identical language as in Gen. 17:7, 19
and Exod. 6:4, which suggests that ‫ בְּ ִרית‬there refers to the covenant with Abraham according to P.
But on the other hand, the presence of rewards and punishments is always missing in the patriarchal
covenant, which suggests that Lev. 26 is also referring to the Sinaitic covenant. The deliberately
ambiguous use of the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬has led scholars to think that the redactor devised this chapter as a
synthesis and harmonization of two competing traditions of covenant, i.e., the Priestly everlasting
covenant with the patriarchs, and the non-priestly tradition of the Sinaitic covenant38. And, in so doing,
P’s unconditional and everlasting covenant is reinterpreted as provisional and temporary.

37 I. Knohl, “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals”, Hebrew Union College Annual 58
(1987), pp. 65-117.
38 N. Lohfink, “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes: zu

Lev. 26,9.11–13”, in H. Gese & H.P. Rüger (eds.), Wort und Geshichte. Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70. Geburstag
(Alter Orient u. Altes Testament 18, 1973), pp. 157-168. See also J. Milgrom, “Covenants: The Sinaitic and
Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-27)”, in C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, S.M. Paul (eds.) Sefer
Moshe – The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volumee (Penn State University: Eisenbrauns, 2004), pp. 91-101.

11
 Some scholars have even gone further and have suggested that the editorial activity of the
Holiness school calls for a revision of the source-critical analysis of the Pentateuch. Bill T. Arnold39
and Mark G. Brett40, for instance, have respectively argued that the Holiness scribes revised, rewrote,
and expanded Genesis more than we had initially thought. Part of this editorial activity involved the
revision of the Priestly concept of covenant. In particular, Arnold claims that the reinterpretation of
the Priestly covenant carried out in Lev. 26 was already anticipated in Gen. 6:11-2241, 9:8-17, and 17:1-
2242. In his view, these covenant narratives were composed by H and do not belong to the same
narrative cloth as the Priestly texts of Exodus that contains no reference to the Sinaitic covenant.
According to this approach, Gen. 17 constitutes a paradigm case of H’s redactional activity where
central Priestly themes have been taken up and readapted to better fit H’s ethical agenda. Among these
editorial devices, Arnold points at the expression “walking with/before” that opens the chapter, which
is reinterpreted here as an imperative that Abraham needs to follow as a prerequisite for the
establishment of the covenant. The practice of circumcision in vv. 9-14 represents for Arnold an
original expansion appended by the editors who believed that the older tradition (vv. 23-37) needed
further explanation. By adding vv. 9-14 to the Priestly narrative, the scribes introduced an important
nuance to P’s covenant theology and advanced a conditional understanding of God’s covenant with
Abraham. By doing so, the H scribes made of Gen. 17 a prooftext that anticipates and prepares for
the covenant in Lev. 26.

Towards a synchronic reading of Genesis 17

Arnold is not alone in seeing vv. 9-14 as a later addition43. Joseph Blenkinsopp, for instance,
has also argued that the verses that mention the law of circumcision (9-14 and 23-27) represent a later
insertion from a temple source closely related to P. However, instead of identifying this source with
H, Blenkinsopp argues that circumcision was presumably added to the Abraham story by a late
Achaemenid scribe. In his view, it was during the late Achaemenid period that circumcision attained

39 B.T. Arnold, “Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble”, in I. Provan & M.J. Boda (eds.), Let Us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour
of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 331-343.
40 M.G. Brett, “The Priestly Dissemination of Abraham”, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3.1 (2014), pp. 87-107.
41 B.T. Arnold, “The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9-9:29)”, in B.T. Arnold et.al. (eds.), Windows

to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of Samuel Greengus (Penn State University, PA: Eisenbrauns,
2014), pp. 13-40.
42 Arnold (2017).
43 See, for instance, K. Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (Frankfurt am Main:

Hain, 1992), pp. 42-45; C. Levin, Der Jahwist, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments 157 (Göttingen: Vandenhock & Ruprecht, 1993), p. 157; H. Seebass, Genesis: Vätergeshichte I (11,27-
22,24) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), pp. 111-12.

12
the central significance in Israel that it has for the redactor of Gen. 17, which makes it reasonable to
think that it was during this time that circumcision was inserted into the narrative to provide an
etiology of its practice by associating it with Abraham44. All these exegetes call for a diachronic division
of Gen. 17 and attribute vv. 9-14 to a later reworking. By doing so, they are able to reconstruct a
narrative text that testifies to an unconditional covenant of ‘pure grace’ and separate it from the
subsequent additions that introduced the commandment of circumcision into the chapter. In addition
to this theological argument, these authors adduce two literary arguments to further support this
division. The first argument assumes that both the Abrahamic and the Noahic covenants belong to P.
If the latter is considered to be unconditional ―they argue― then the same should be expected of the
covenant with Abraham. They also note that, while in the covenant with Noah the term ‘sign of the
covenant’ designates a guarantee given by God (Gen. 9:12,13,17), in the covenant with Abraham refers
to an obligation that the human party needs to fulfill45. The second argument points to the language
and style employed in Gen: 9-14. These verses contain several legal idioms ―‫ שָּ מַ ר בְּ ִרית‬in vv. 9a, 10a;
‫ הֵ פַר בְּ ִרית‬in v. 14b; and the penalty itself of breaking the covenant― that are alien to P but are typical
of D and H. Additionally, vv. 10-12a and 13b address a second person plural which is taken as evidence
to regard these verses as a later insertion46. Such a diachronic division of the chapter seems to help
resolve the perceived tension between the concept of an unconditional covenant in P and the
commandment of male circumcision. One might further argue that, if the verses that impose on the
human party the obligation to circumcise did actually belong to P, and the covenant with Abraham
was in fact understood as a conditional relationship, we would still have to explain why P omitted the
conditional in Sinai. If the Priestly redactor regarded both covenants as conditional, why did he
preserve the Abrahamic and discard the Sinaitic?

After reviewing the different attempts at a diachronic division of Gen. 17, I shall try now to
scrutinize the aforementioned arguments and claim that this chapter can still be seen as a unified
literary unit. That is, I will endeavor to show how the chapter offers enough evidence to reconstruct
a version of the Abrahamic covenant that reconciles P’s covenant theology and the commandment of
circumcision. To do so, I will begin by examining the literary structure of Gen. 17 and try to determine
if the narrative itself provides any textual evidence to support a conditional understanding of the

44 J. Blenkinsopp, “The ‘Covenant of Circumcision’ (Gen 17) in the Context of the Abraham Cycle (Gen 11:27 – 25:11):
Preliminary Considerations”, in F. Giuntoli & K. Schmid, The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its
Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), pp. 145-56.
45 Grünwaldt (1992), pp. 58-59.
46 Idem., pp. 27-35

13
covenant with Abraham. I will then analyze the specific verses that take up the issue of circumcision
(9-14 and 23-27) and will try to determine what type of obligation these verses imply and how could
they potentially affect the status of the covenant. Finally, I will examine how the rest of the chapter
refers to the covenant and what are the implications of establishing circumcision as the ‘sign of the
covenant’. Let us start then by inquiring whether the patriarchal narrative and, in particular, Gen. 17,
contains any statement implying covenant conditionality. The number of scriptural passages that could
conceivably contain conditions is not large47. The first passage is Gen. 12:1, where Abraham is told to
leave his country. The chapters that follow contain other examples where Abraham’s obedience was
put to a test and his intention to serve God had to be proved: the altar that Abraham builds at Shechem
(Gen. 12:7), or the commandment to sacrifice to God a heifer, a goat, and a ram (Gen. 15:9-10)48. The
opening verses of Gen. 17 (vv. 1-2) are also regarded by Knohl as an obligation on the part of
Abraham: “Walk before me and be blameless”. What these scholars argue is that the aforementioned
passages represent some sort of condition or obligation that Abraham needed to fulfill before entering
into a covenantal relationship with God. As such, they should be considered as preconditions for the
covenant. In all those instances, Abraham is faced with a certain obligation (to leave his country, to
offer a sacrifice to God, to walk with God, etc.) whose fulfillment is required to receive the divine
blessings: if he leaves his country, if he walks with God… then he might be the recipient of God’s
blessings.

The problem with this approach is that it tends to regard every demand that God requires of
Abraham as a condition for the covenant. However, as Christophe Nihan has pointed out, one should
distinguish between God’s demands or expectations on Abraham and the specific sanctions
contemplated in the covenant49. If every demand or petition that God makes to Abraham prior to
establishing a covenant with him is to be seen as a condition for the covenant then, by the same token,
every human decision taken by the patriarch should also be regarded as a condition: if Abraham had
not left his land there would be no covenant, if Abraham had not offered a sacrifice to God there
would be no covenant, etc. Similarly, one could say that if Noah had not built the ark there would be
no covenant, if Noah had not entered into the ark with his family there would be no covenant, etc.
One could even go further and say that, if Adam and Eve had not followed God’s command to be

47 C. Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham and its historical setting”, Bibliotheca sacra 127.507 (1970), pp. 241-256.
48 Some scholars argue that the number of conditional passages is much larger. See, for instance, W.C. Kaiser Jr. Toward
an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 92-93, and Youngblood (1983), pp. 36-41.
49 C. Nihan, “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of P”, in S. Shectman (ed.), The Strata of

Priestly Writings: contemporary debate and future directions (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009), pp. 87-134.

14
fruitful and multiply there would be no covenant (Gen. 1:28), or if men hadn’t filled the earth with
wickedness God might have not decided to destroy it and there would be no covenant either (Gen.
6:5-6). Yet, although this chain of events ultimately led to the establishment of the covenant with
Abraham, they are never described as obligations that are linked to a covenant that has not been
established yet and it is hard to conceive how Abraham could have interpreted them that way. In other
words, the covenant narratives in P and their surrounding chapters present a relationship between
God and these individuals that is built upon several acts of obedience and faith. And although one
could argue that these events played a part in God’s decision to establish a covenant, their connection
to the actual validity of God’s covenant is only circumstantial and are different from the specific
conditions that God disclosed in the covenant speech. Moreover, the fact that Gen. 17 opens with
two imperatives (‘walk before me and be blameless’) does not necessarily imply that these demands
are conditions for the covenant50. While the expression ‘walk before God’ differs slightly from the
formula ‘walk with God’ employed in P’s genealogy (Gen. 5:22-24) and in the Noahic cycle (Gen. 6:9)51,
the parallel between Noah and Abraham suggests that, just as Noah was saved from the flood because
of his integrity, so Abraham must have exhibited at the very least the same degree of moral excellence
to be the recipient of God’s blessings. The opening verses of Gen. 17 should therefore be read as a
distinctive feature that P employed to present Abraham (and Noah in Gen. 6:9) as an exemplary
individual who found favor before God. As a matter of fact, the conjunction of ‘walking with’ or
‘before’ God and ‘being blameless’ does not appear outside the Pentateuch.

In addition to the different attempts to explain synchronically the structure of this chapter
which, as noted, often try to account for the presence of vv. 9-14 and 23-27, one should also examine
how the narrative itself describes the covenant established with Abraham. In this regard, the depiction
of the covenant as an everlasting pact is not to be overlooked. Throughout Gen. 17, the covenant is
described in four different occasions as an ‘everlasting covenant’ ―‫ בְּ ִרית עֹולָּם‬occurs in vv. 7,8, 13, and
19―. It is true that ‫ עֹולָּם‬does not exclusively mean ‘everlasting’ or ‘perpetual’, but that is the meaning
it has whenever occurs in a covenant narrative throughout the Pentateuch, the historical books, and
the prophets52. This understanding of the perpetuity of the covenant is explicitly mentioned in Gen.

50 Weinfeld (1970), p. 186

51 See E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (Berling: De Gruyter, 1990), pp. 289ff, who argues that the expression
‘walking with God’ is only used in P to refer to the ancestors of mankind before the flood. In his view, the
disappearance of this expression after the flood is a sign of the fact that the possibility of direct contact between
God and humanity was lost after the flood.
52 BDB (1996), § 439.

15
9:11: the establishment of the covenant is accompanied by the announcement that ‘never again shall
the flesh be cut off by waters of a flood’. More significantly, the expression ‫ בְּ ִרית עֹולָּם‬only occurs in
passages that are traditionally assigned to P ―Gen. 9:12,16 - 17:7,13,19; Exod. 31:16; Lev. 24:8; Num.
18:19 - 25:13― and is never found outside priestly layers (Exod. 31:16 and Lev. 24:8 are often assigned
to H, but that takes us again to the debate surrounding the Holiness code)53. The fact that P
consistently presents the covenant as a ‫ בְּ ִרית עֹולָּם‬emphasizes the distinctiveness of his covenantal
theology. What is more, the appearance of this expression in the passage that describes the
commandment of circumcision (v. 13) supports an understanding of the Abrahamic covenant as
unconditional: even if God envisaged certain conditions for the human party, and even if Israel might
eventually fail to observe them, the validity of the covenant would still be contingent on God. In other
words, it is possible to conceive of an unconditional ―perhaps everlasting is a better term― covenant
without excluding the possibility of a breach on the side of the human partner. God will always
remember his covenant, and, for its part, it will never be broken. Israel, on the other hand, will have
to observe the commandment of circumcision to remain within a covenantal relationship with God.

The relationship between the everlasting nature of God’s covenant and the presence of a
condition on its formulation to Abraham is better understood by examining the purpose and
significance of the element that God designated as the sign of the covenant: circumcision. In his study
on the Priestly etiologies, Michael Fox insightfully explained how all the ‫ אֹותֹות‬in P function as
cognitions signs whose purpose is to awaken knowledge of something in the observer. In particular,
these cognition signs can serve to either identify something as belonging to a certain category (Cain’s
sign marks him as an individual under special protection), or to bring to consciousness something
already known. The signs associated with the Priestly covenants ―the rainbow, circumcision, Sabbath,
etc.― belong to this last category: they are mnemonic signs that “stir up cognition, with the result that
a covenant, a promise, or a commandment is maintained by God or man” 54. In other words, these
signs function as a sort of reminder (‫ ) ִז ָּכרֹון‬for the observer about the terms and conditions he is
expected to observe as a consequence of the covenantal relationship he is part of. In the covenant
with Abraham, the rainbow serves as a reminder to God to keep his promise and not destroy the earth
again; in the Mosaic covenant, the Sabbath recalls every week to Israel something that is not new
knowledge and reminds the Israelites that God has set them aside as his special nation.

53 Nihan (2009), pp. 99-100.

54 Fox (1974), p. 570

16
 The assumption that the covenants in P are everlasting and unconditional is supported by the
nature of the signs chosen by God to serve as a reminder of his covenant. In all the three
aforementioned examples, the Priestly author has taken a pre-existent natural phenomenon or practice
–the rainbow, the Sabbath, circumcision– and turned it into a cognition sign. What is more important,
P has chosen elements of timeless permanence to act as permanent signs: the rainbow is a natural
phenomenon that concurs every time the rain ceases and, as such, it will last as long as the earth
endures; the Sabbath was created along with heaven and earth and, as such, it was established once
and for all; even circumcision can be deemed as an element of timeless permanence since at that time
it was a custom practiced by the people of the then known world. By so doing, the Priestly author has
established a parallel between the eternality of the covenant and the quality of timeless permanence of
the objects signaled by God to mark his covenant. Just like the covenant has been established once
and for all, these ‫ אֹותֹות בְּ ִרית‬are permanent signs whose recurrent presence operates in the service of
the covenant reminding its participants about the everlasting nature of such relationship. The signs
are thus inextricably linked to the covenant they remind of: they are eternal signs who have the power
to recall an equally eternal pact that God has established.

The covenant in Gen. 17 represents a somewhat peculiar case, for circumcision is called both
a covenant (‫יתי‬
ִ ‫ז ֹּאת בְּ ִר‬, v. 10) and the sign of the covenant (‫אֹות בְּ ִרית‬, v. 11). As Fox has noted, this dual
representation is not the result of vagueness of thought, but rather an intentional designation by the
Priestly author. Moreover, I believe this literary device offers a valuable insight into the role of the
commandment to circumcise in the Abrahamic covenant. As mentioned before, P often adopts
ancient phenomena which had their own significance and converts them into cognition signs. In this
case, the author has taken a common ancient rite ―circumcision― associated with puberty and
marriage and turned it now into a sign that only applies to Israel. Rather than an ancient tribal mark,
scholars have shown that circumcision was essentially a fertility device that was performed in
adolescence or just before marriage55. Its practice was intended at preventing phimosis and thus
ensuring the greatest number of offspring56. Fox, for instance, does not completely discard other
explanations to the practice of circumcision such as a test of endurance, a sacrifice, or a tribal mark,
but still regards fertility as the basic motive57. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that circumcision
was associated with fertility and marriage among the ancient Israelites. The terms circumcision and

55 Fox (1974), p. 591.

56 H.H. Ploss, Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker: Anthropologische Studien (Berlin: A.B. Auerbach, 1882), p. 364.
57 Fox (1974), p. 592.

17
marriage are etymologically connected in the Arabic ẖatana “to circumcise” and ẖatuna “to become
akin to someone through one’s wife”; as well as in Hebrew ‫( ֲחתַ ן דָּ מים‬Exod. 4:26) said about
circumcision, ‫“ חֹּ תֵ ן‬a circumciser”, and ‫“ חֲתֻ נָּה‬marriage, wedding”58. Additionally, the Pentateuch
contains several passages where the issue of circumcision is specifically brought up as a prerequisite
to marriage into the tribe (Gen. 24; 34). In the Dinah story, for instance, Jacob’s sons explicitly say
that they cannot give their sister “to a man who is uncircumcised” (Gen. 34: 14). In Joshua 5: 2-9 we
learn that circumcision was practiced at puberty or adulthood.

If in Israel circumcision was a rite performed at puberty or before marriage and was associated
with fertility, we may surmise then that its presence in the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 17 ―where
God chiefly promises him a great posterity― is far from being incidental. In my view, the fact that
circumcision appears alongside the promise of great progeny not only confirms that the rite was
associated with fertility but, more importantly for our purpose here, it also provides a different frame
for understanding its role as the condition for the covenant. Circumcision should not simply be seen
as the conditional given by God to uphold his covenant, it is the human cooperation that God expects
from Israel to become numerous people. Circumcision is given as the condition of the covenant
precisely because it is its practice what will ensure Abraham numerous descendants. By cutting every
male’s foreskin, Abraham and his descendants are effectively contributing towards becoming a greater
nation. This does not mean that God’s part in the fulfillment of his promise is completely delegated
to the human party. At the end of the day, God still has to grant a son to Abraham and Sarah. The
presence of circumcision might simply respond to the modus operandi that the Priestly author attributed
to God in the different covenant narratives. In the covenant with Noah, for instance, one can easily
recognize the same pattern. God solemnly promises not to destroy humanity again (Gen. 9: 11), and
commands Noah and his sons to “be fertile and multiply” (Gen. 9:1) following the flood. However,
just as God commits himself not to destroy the earth again, he also demands some human cooperation:
he forbids human beings to eat meat (Gen. 9:4) and warns against killing each other (Gen. 9:5). In
other words, the commandments and conditions attached to the covenant are strictly connected to
the promise given by God at that moment. They are not external conditions that do not relate to the
promise conveyed by God. On the contrary, their observance by the human party will precisely help
that promise eventually become a reality.

58 BDB (1996), § 2859.

18
 Discussion and concluding remarks

After the previous considerations, we are in a better position to answer the question at hand:
Is the covenant in Gen. 17 conditional or unconditional? The etymological analysis of the word ‫בְּ ִרית‬
showed how the term is employed throughout the Old Testament in a twofold manner: sometimes
the term denotes ‘oath and commitment’ while at other times its meaning is closer to the semantic
field of and ‘love and friendship’. Of special interest was the use that the Priestly author made of the
word ‫בְּ ִרית‬. In the Priestly literary world, ‫ בְּ ִרית‬is the word chosen to refer to the covenants that God
established with Noah and humanity (Gen. 6:18; 9:9-7), with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. 2:24;
6:4; Lev. 26:42), with Phineas (Num. 25:12), with the priests (Num. 18:19), and with the entire Israel
(Lev. 26:9, 44-45). That is, ‫ בְּ ִרית‬is the term employed in P to refer to the covenants that are
unconditional. By contrast, whenever P refers to the covenant as a set of obligations imposed by God
on Israel he seldom uses the term ‫בְּ ִרית‬, rather the term ‫ עֵדּות‬is employed (Exod. 31:18; 32:15-16, 19).
As we discussed, the instances where the term ‫ בְּ ִרית‬is not explicitly used in this unconditional sense
(chiefly, in Lev. 26) seem to be a deliberate literary device used by the Holiness redactor to harmonize
two competing traditions of covenant. Moreover, the extant forms of Ancient Near East judicial
documents, the ‘political treaty’ and the ‘royal grant’, seem to parallel the two types of covenants found
in the Bible: the obligatory and the promissory. The covenant with Abraham, in particular, delves
around the two main themes that occupied the royal grants in the Mesopotamic political reality: land
and progeny. Additionally, some of the formulas and expressions that appear in Gen. 17 find striking
parallels in the extant Hittite royal grants and the ANE marriage documents. One should be careful,
however, before concluding that the biblical covenant traditions found their inspiration in these legal
sources: the differences between different legal ANE documents still need to be taken into
consideration and Weinfeld’s study has not been free from critics59.

As it was noted, the understanding of the covenant in Gen. 17 as a promissory-type covenant

still leaves unsolved the inherent tension in the chapter: if the covenant with Abraham is
unconditional, why does the narrative introduce the condition of male circumcision in its formulation?
The attempts to solve this problem were various. Several scholars claimed that vv. 9-14 represents a
later addition made by the Holiness redactor to reinterpret P’s covenant theology and anticipate the

59 G. Knoppers, for instance, has challenged the unconditional nature of the royal grant in the Mesopotamic context and
has criticized the parallels drawn between these documents and the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant. See G.
Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant”, Journal of the American Oriental Society
116. 4 (1996), pp. 670-697.

19
synthesis of traditions found in Lev. 26. Others, like Blenkinsopp, see these verses as later insertion
from a temple source closely related to P at a time when circumcision had already attained a central
significance in Israel. Although the arguments for a source-critical division of Gen. 17 are not to be
discarded —for the make a strong case for seeing these verses as a late editorial device and thus solve
the tension revolving around the narrative—, I have tried to show how the chapter can still be read as
a unified literary composition and be seen at the same time as an unconditional covenant. First, the
passages often adduced by scholars as evidence of conditions to the covenant are hard to justify and
are different from the stipulations found in the covenant formulation itself. Second, the narrative
specifically describes the covenant with Abraham as a ‫בְּ ִרית עֹולָּם‬, so it is hard to see how or why would
God cease to maintain such a covenant. Finally, the identification of circumcision as the sign of the
covenant suggests that, rather than a condition, circumcision represents the human cooperation that
God expects from Abraham and his descendants to fulfill the promise to make them numerous people.
It is true that failure to observe circumcision leads to exclusion from the covenant relationship (Gen.
17:14), but again this does not mean necessarily that circumcision is a condition: he who does not
practice circumcision cannot be part of the covenant with God plain and simple because he is not, as
a matter of fact, cooperating with Him to fulfill his promise of offspring.

To sum up, both the literary-critical division of the chapter or its synchronic reading allow for
an unconditional understanding of the covenant with Abraham. Assessing which one of these
approaches offers stronger evidence would require a closer examination. Regardless of the outcome,
it is fair to conclude that the covenant God established with Abraham in Gen. 17 represents an
unconditional relationship between both parties: even if God expects the human party to comply with
the practice of circumcision, he does so in hope that such a practice will eventually help Abraham’s
descendants become a numerous progeny, and in any case endangers the validity of the covenant
which rests solely on God.

20
References

Arnold, B.T. (2012), “Genesis 1 as Holiness Preamble”, in I. Provan & M.J. Boda (eds.), Let Us Go up
to Zion: Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Leiden:
Brill), pp. 331-343.

― (2014), “The Holiness Redaction of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6:9-9:29)”, in B.T. Arnold
et.al. (eds.), Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of Samuel Greengus
(Penn State University, PA: Eisenbrauns), pp. 13-40.

― (2017), “The Holiness Redaction of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 17), in S.L. Birdsong
& S. Frolov (eds.), Partners with God: Theological and Critical Readings of the Bible in Honor of Marvin
A. Sweeney (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press), pp. 51-61.

Baltzer, K. (1960), Das Bunderformular (Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag).

Bernat, D. (2009), Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Priestly Tradition (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature).

Blenkinsopp, J. (2015), “The ‘Covenant of Circumcision’ (Gen 17) in the Context of the Abraham
Cycle (Gen 11:27 – 25:11): Preliminary Considerations”, in F. Giuntoli & K. Schmid, The Post-
Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck), pp. 145-56.

Blum, E. (1990), Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (Berling: De Gruyter).

Brett, M.G. (2014), “The Priestly Dissemination of Abraham”, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3.1, pp.
87-107.

Brown, F., Driver, S. & Briggs C. (1996), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers).

Cross, F.M. (1973), Cananite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion in Israel (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1973).

Dumbrell, W. (1993), Covenant and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Eichrodt, W. (1933-1939), Theologie des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).

Freedman, D.N. (1964), “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation”, Interpretation: A Journal of Bible
and Theology 18.4, pp. 419-431.

21
Fox, M. (1974), “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in Light of the Priestly ‘ôt Etiologies”, Revue
Biblique 81.4, pp. 557-596.

Gelb, I.J. et. al. (eds.) (1965), The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Volume 2 (Chicago, IL: The Oriental
Institute).

Glueck, N. (1967), Hesed in the Bible (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock).

Grünwaldt, K. (1992), Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift (Frankfurt am
Main: Hain).

Hahn, S. (2005), “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994-2004)”,
Currents in Biblical Research 3.2, pp. 263-292.

― (2009), Kingship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (New
Haven: Yale University Press).

Held, M. (1970), “Philological Notes on the Mari Covenant Rituals”, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 200.33, pp. 32-40.

Kaiser Jr. W.C. (1978), Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Kline, M.G. (1963), Treaty of the Great King: the Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, Studies and Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)

― (1968) By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Knohl, I. (1987), “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals”, Hebrew
Union College Annual 58 (1987), pp. 65-117.

― (2007), The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns), pp. 137-148.

Koehler, L. & Baumgartner, W. (1994) The Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament (Leiden:
Brill).

Knoppers, G. (1996), “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant”, Journal of the
American Oriental Society 116. 4, pp. 670-697.

Krause, J.J. (2018), “Circumcision and covenant in Genesis 17”, Biblica 99.2, pp. 151-165.

22
Levin, C. (1993), Der Jahwist, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
157 (Göttingen: Vandenhock & Ruprecht).

Lohfink, N. (1973), “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des
Heiligkeitsgesetzes: zu Lev. 26,9.11–13”, in H. Gese & H.P. Rüger (eds.), Wort und Geshichte.
Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70. Geburstag (Alter Orient u. Altes Testament 18), pp. 157-168.

McCarthy, D.J. (1963), Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and the Old
Testament (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico).

― (1965), “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry”, The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 27.3, pp. 217-240.

Mendenhall, G.E. (1954), “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition”, The Biblical Archaeologist 17.3, pp.
49-76.

― (1955), Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburg, PA: Biblical
Colloquium).

Milgrom, J. (2004), “Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code
(Leviticus 17-27)”, in C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, S.M. Paul (eds.) Sefer Moshe – The Moshe Weinfeld
Jubilee Volume (Penn State University: Einsenbrauns), pp. 91-101.

Nihan, C. (2009), “The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of P”, in S.
Shectman (ed.), The Strata of Priestly Writings: contemporary debate and future directions (Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag Zürich), pp. 87-134.

Noth, M. (1972), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Ploss, H.H. (1882), Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker: Anthropologische Studien (Berlin: A.B.
Auerbach).

Rogers, C. (1970), “The Covenant with Abraham and its historical setting”, Bibliotheca sacra 127.507,
pp. 241-256.

Seebass, H. (1997), Genesis: Vätergeshichte I (11,27-22,24) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).

Stipp, H.-J. (2005), “Meinen Bund hat er gebrochen (Gen 17,14). Die Individualisierung des
Bundesbruchs in der Priesterschrift, Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Prophetie”,
Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 56.4, pp. 290-304.

23
Von Rad, G. (1972), Genesis: A commentary (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press).

Weinfeld, M. (1970), “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East”,
Journal of American Oriental Society 90.2, pp. 184-203.

― (1975), “Berît – Covenant vs. Obligation”, Biblica 56.1, pp. 120-128.

Wenham, G. (1994), Genesis 16-50 (Dallas: Word Books).

Williamson, P.R. (2007), Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press).

Youngblood, R. (1983), “The Abrahamic Covenant: Conditional or Unconditional?”, in Inch, M.A. &
Youngblood, R. (eds.), The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz
(Penn State University, PA: Einsenbrauns), pp. 31-46.

Zimmerli, W. (1960), “Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum Verständis der Priesterschrift”,
Theologische Zeitschrift 16, pp. 268-280.

24